NYC; History Tells Prosecutors To Aim Low

By CLYDE HABERMAN

Published: March 20, 2007

New York's worst-kept secret was officially revealed yesterday with the unsealing of indictments against three police detectives in the Sean Bell case.

Thanks to information leaks, the mother's milk of journalists and government officials, the outlines of the indictments became known within minutes after a Queens grand jury handed them up on Friday: manslaughter charges against Detectives Michael Oliver and Gescard F. Isnora, and charges of reckless endangerment against Detective Marc Cooper. In that sense, yesterday's announcement of the charges by the Queens district attorney, Richard A. Brown, was merely a formality.

But there is no such thing as a mere formality when police officers stand accused, especially when their actions caused the death of an unarmed man, Mr. Bell. Especially when that unarmed man lost his life in a barrage of 50 bullets. Especially when that unarmed man lost his life in a barrage of 50 bullets on what should have been his wedding day.

So there was inherent drama yesterday, even if Mr. Brown read the indictments with about as much emotion as he might have summoned while reciting a passage from Thucydides.

As he spoke, thoughts drifted back to Amadou Diallo, the African immigrant gunned down in the Bronx in 1999 by four police officers firing 41 shots. The contrasts between the two situations were almost palpable.

In the Bell case, Mr. Brown was no-nonsense; he made the charges public on the first possible working day. In the Diallo case, the Bronx district attorney, Robert T. Johnson, kept an anxious city dangling for six days; he held onto a sealed indictment against the four officers until Mr. Diallo's parents could fly in from overseas.

Alongside Mr. Brown yesterday stood a dozen of his prosecutors and investigators. Alongside Mr. Johnson in 1999 stood the Diallo parents. But the Diallos, with all respect for their pain, had no standing in the matter. Having them there was purely an emotional fillip.

The most significant difference, though, lay in the charges. At the behest of Mr. Johnson, who likened the Diallo killing to a drive-by shooting, the grand jury returned charges of second-degree murder. The Bell grand jury settled for a top charge of first-degree manslaughter.

Sure, it is a serious accusation. It carries a possible prison sentence of 25 years. But it falls well short of suggesting that the detectives showed depraved indifference to human life, let alone that they consciously set out to kill Mr. Bell.

''Manslaughter is not good enough because we've seen people walk on that,'' said Hazel N. Dukes, president of the New York State Conference of N.A.A.C.P. Branches.

Charles Barron, the former Black Panther turned city councilman, felt the same. ''They're setting it up for an acquittal or a slap on the wrist,'' he said.

History, however, suggests that the opposite is true. Indict a New York police officer for murder in the performance of his job, however much he may have botched it, and you are almost guaranteeing he will walk. That was a lesson from the Diallo case, which ended with all four officers being acquitted.

Aiming low is sometimes a more effective tactic for a prosecutor. Lying low is definitely a more effective tactic for police officers accused of serious crimes. On that score, we have another contrast between the two cases.

The Diallo officers all but vanished before their trial. That by itself may not have helped their cause. But it surely did not hurt it.

Compare them with Detective Oliver, who may have the most explaining to do in the Bell case, having fired 31 of the 50 shots. On Sunday, an article and a photograph on the front page of The New York Post showed him in the company of two women, leaving a high-priced East Side restaurant where a friend had reportedly picked up an astounding $4,200 dinner tab.

Is any of this relevant to the case? Not really. But since when is life always about relevance?

If you're under indictment in a high-profile case, do you really want a prospective juror to wonder how it is that you're feasting on $65 Dover sole while he is sitting at some lunch counter nibbling on a grilled-cheese sandwich?